Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Hidden in Plain Sight?

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on July 12, 2016

Yesterday, it was confirmed that Adam Johnson was to remain the poster child for those such as the NSPCC that wish us to believe that the gravest danger likely to to befall a child was coming into contact with a ‘celebrity’.

His sentence of six years, and enforced ‘treatment’ for ‘hypersexual disorder’ or being an extremely fit and agile young man with a high testosterone level – and ‘fame’ that other disgusting attribute of the ‘paedophile’ was upheld by a single judge in the appeal court.

The belief that Adam Johnson and his celebrity cohorts, such unlikely figures as Lord Bramall and Cliff Richard, are what a ‘paedophile’ looks like, has served the NSPCC well – their coffers are filling up nicely as they plead to be allowed to rid the world of such evil figures. The figures for the successful prosecution of a grown man for child abuse are rising rapidly, they tell us.

Simon Bailey, the Chief Constable of Norfolk, who is in overall control of this area of police activity, has calculated that in 2015, a cool billion pounds was spent investigating these crimes.

The NSPCC is not the only charitable organisation concerned with child protection, much though they might wish it were so. There is a far larger, older established, and more successful, when it comes to fundraising, charitable organisation – Barnardos. It does make you wonder why the Liverpool businessman who set up the NSPCC in 1880 didn’t apply his talents to fundraising for the already existent Barnardos…they have been in hot competition ever since.

Was it any coincidence that the recent round of fundraising and profile raising by the NSPCC invoking the departed Jimmy Savile as Britain’s No 1 paedophile was set in a Barnardos establishment – Duncroft – in Surrey?

We have heard remarkably little from Barnardos since the endless media onslaught telling us that men, especially VIP men, and particularly VIP politicians. are the cause of a rising tide of child abuse. Heard little maybe, but Barnardos have not been idle.

Yesterday, overshadowed by the equally rising tide of celebrity resignations, they released the results of six months hard work. Six months of studying the actual prosecutions for child abuse that cost us one billion pounds, along with Simon Bailey and a clutch of cross bench politicians – not including the likes of Simon Danczuk or Tom Watson, but calmer heads like George Howarth, and Peter Dowd.

They discovered the quite stunning report conducted by Lorraine Radford – on behalf of the NSPCC, if you please – which may make your jaw drop a little. Radford had identified the profile of 65% of the ‘paedophiles’ responsible for this epidemic of child abuse.

Some UK studies (including the biggest conducted into victimisation in this country so far) have suggested that the proportion may be significantly higher with one study estimating that up to 65 per cent of sexual abuse experienced by children under 18 is perpetrated by someone under the age of 18.

Would you like a moment to let that sink in?

65% of child sexual abuse was perpetrated byother children.

That does not minimise the seriousness of child abuse at all, nor does it reduce the harm that may be caused by it – but it does bring into question why the highly politicised NSPCC has been so keen to throw its weight behind a campaign emphasising the dangers posed to children by men, and particularly celebrity men, when your little child was actually in more danger playing with her chums than being allowed out into the park where ‘strange men’ might grab her.

Nor is it the case that we are necessarily speaking of brothers and sisters playing ‘Doctors and Nurses’:

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s report into child sexual abuse in the family environment found that 25 per cent of all cases of child abuse in the family environment involved a perpetrator under the age of 18.

Society has traditionally treated sexual abuse as taboo, and sexual abuse committed by children as doubly taboo, leading to under-recording and underestimation of prevalence.

Related to this, many children and young people who have experienced sexual abuse do not come forward. One study found that 82.7 per cent of children aged 11-17 who experienced sexual abuse by a peer did not tell anyone else about it.

So under-reporting for sure – but not as a result of being afraid of not being believed because [insert name of VIP celebrity] was so powerful!

Figures released today by the NHS [£paywall] claim that 2,700 adolescents and children are being treated for ‘gender reassignment’ and that the pressure for treatment is so great that a private clinic has started up in London treating children as young as 12. Can we doubt that children can be highly sexualised when they have thought the matter through sufficiently rationally to be taken seriously when they announce they wish to change sex?

Theresa May, our ‘almost Prime Minister’ (or was, as I started writing this?) was responsible for setting up the Goddard inquiry – after she had met several of the more vocal of the ‘survivors groups’, she said she now realised that ‘abuse is woven, covertly, into the fabric of our society’. The Goddard Inquiry is looking into abuse said to be perpetuated by the very group of people pushed forward by the NSPCC as being responsible for this ‘rising tide of abuse’.

It does not, will not, look at abuse within a familial setting, nor abuse carried out by other children.

Which means it is ignoring the bulk of that abuse. Meanwhile, adult males are terrified of having anything to do with children.

My first question is ‘what are they classing as ‘abuse’? When I recall the ‘Doctors & Nurses’ games of my Junior school days…through the NHS prescription glasses of modern Enlightened and Gender Sensitive thinking…I could quite imagine KB, my classmate, feeling she had been abused by our ‘gang’ out of sight on the ‘top field’ that day , or in the swimming pool when we played the jolly jabe of swimming up to her underwater from behind and yanking down her bikini bottoms…all good clean fun.

And then there was JK who had lift her skirt and drop her knickers before we would let her out of the toilet block.

Surely it a travesty of justice and unfair to the VICTIMS of historical Child-on-Child abuse that KB & AJM & JK et al can’t have me charged with ‘abuse’. Hopefully our new Prime Minister will, as a matter fo urgency, address this hidden crime so that the fact I and my evil child raping cohorts were under the age of criminal responsibility at the time is no longer a valid defence. We must stop ignoring the Victims of such abuse who no doubt carry the burden of what was done to them their entire lives.

Plastic armbands, white with red spots and the logo ‘Justice 4 COCA’ (‘Child-On-Child Abuse’) will be available shortly.

Also available will be the new stunning ‘I survived St Giles De Rais Church Endowed School, Upper Nosebleed’ T-shirts. Designed by a victim of just such abuse who has gone on to empower herself through fashion design for Kids Scape and other charities working with SURVIVORS.

Had a quick flick through the Barnado´s report. They seem to be pushing the acronym HSB (really, really heavily…) which in turn appears to be a synonym of ‘abuse’. This ‘Harmful Sexual Behaviour’ casts a wide net (and they seem quite concerned elsewhere with ‘sexting’):

“Harmful sexual behaviour is when children and young people (under 18) engage in sexual discussions or activities that are inappropriate for their age or stage of development, often with other individuals who they have power over by virtue of age, emotional maturity, gender, physical strength, or intellect and where the victim in this relationship has suffered a betrayal of trust. These activities can range from using sexually explicit words and phrases to full penetrative sex with other children or adults.”

I get the horrible feeling that the modern equivalent of being shown a crusty page from an old porno mag in the playground now always involves a ‘victim’ & a ‘perpetrator’. Who was it who recently called for smartphones to be ‘banned’ for the under-16s? If only it were possible.

As we write, a team of dedicated lawers (or Slater & Gordon) are now combing the land for anyone with the intitals KB, AJM or JK, for whom they are now confident that they can turn your careless confessions into cash: a small amout for KB, AJM and JK, but a huge amount in charges for the team of dedicated lawyers (or Slater & Gordon). Unless, of course, you’re not a deep-pocketed celebrity, Government department or the BBC, in which case they really don’t give a toss for what happened to KB, AJM and JK anywhere anytime, then your history of youthful fumbling can return to what it really was and what we all did, only the initials were different.

During a training session to support those released on license after being convicted of sexual offences against children, we learned that, statistically, the majority of convictions in the UK are for abuse by older siblings against their younger family members. It was a surprise to all of us trainees, who had thought it would be step-parents or other family relatives.

And on page two we find the glorious sentence, brimful of …something…: ” The older sibling may also abuse a younger sibling by repeatedly watching them in the shower or when toileting, whilst they themselves don’t want to be watched.”

So if the elder sibling doesn’t mind being watched while he or she takes a dump, all is good? Please tell me you didn’t write that, Windy?

I agree, pretty sure they meant the older sibling too. As I have no doubt said before; a short , thankfully very bloody short, experience in working in Social Work, left me with a pet hatred of such ill written ‘cock waffle’ (a social worker’s technical term I believe).

But growing up in Norfolk i see nothing ‘abusive’ about watching one’s younger sister in the shower or having a pooh…someone has to hold her baby.

“cock waffle” was my former Boss’s (in social care) word for such ‘Guidance’ that even then in the 80s was becoming increasingly common. One of his words anyways…the others would not be appropriate for this blog or incomprehensible as my boss was from Castle Milk…the scenic part.

NB If we assume they meant the younger child , does that mean if the little sister enjoys her big brother watching her soap up her ‘private parts’ then all is good? All is well in the family?

If I’m reading the leaflet correctly, it depends on the age difference, the actual ages of each participant and the level of activity. It looks to me as if it is a trying to draw that distinction you yourself want to clarify – what is acceptable/natural play/curiosity/development and when does it step over the line to being unwanted/abusive/damaging?

And haven’t we all been struggling with those ideas on this subject on this blog (despite this being a different aspect of that debate), while still working within the definitions of the law?

I recall once hearing a truly loose and woolly definition that it was “abuse” if it was something that made the (by implication younger) child feel “uncomfortable” doing. “Blimey,” I thought, “that could include being chained to the Basildon Bond to write the obligatory post-birthday/Xmas thank you letters…”

Effectively, though, that definition has to apply. If you foster, or adopt, or become step parent to a new child, one would hope the child would receive the same care an attention as natural offspring, which would include making sure natural curiosity doesn’t get out of hand or lead to unwanted consequences.

I would hope so too, but only in the same way I hope to win the lottery (i.e. I don’t really believe it’s going to happen). The Barnado’s report makes much of the role neglect can play in those who ‘abuse’:

“A consistent message to the Inquiry was that the majority of young people displaying HSB were highly likely to have been abused themselves, often sexually, but also through experiencing some other form of physical or emotional abuse or neglect.”

I was thinking of those modern families in a state of constant flux, a far cry from my own childhood when I recall being shocked to discover that two brothers with whom I was friends were not, after all, ‘real’ brothers at all (as they had a different father or mother). It caused me real confusion at the time, something hard to imagine happening these days. I’ve always assumed (without checking to see if there is any basis for this) that shared genes inhibit attraction between siblings. As I said, as a yearning, awkward teenager I don’t think I’d have felt this immediate inhibition from the moment my dad told me: “Here son, this is your pretty new sister.”

‘Shared genes’ or ‘shared experiences’ (a lifetime of ’em), who knows? But simply being close to – or within sight of! – a girl was enough to have me uncomfortably crouched over the school desk as a young ‘un. Or a friend’s ‘hot’ mum would open the door and the blood would rise…

I don’t recall much temptation to pounce on my older sister, but her having her friends over would give me plenty of material for my bedtime fantasies later that evening! If I’d have had one of THOSE girls thrust upon me (oh Lord, if only!) at a certain age I’m not sure there’d have been much holding me back. Attraction + availability = opportunity.

Is that true, Leady? As I said I was just basing my belief on instinct more than anything else. This from The Guardian suggests it might not be (but I’m open to being convinved otherwise): “”It may be tempting to think that humans choose their partners because of their similarities,” said Maria da Graça Bicalho, a professor of immunology at the University of Paraná in Brazil. “[But] our research has shown clearly that it is differences that make for successful reproduction, and that the subconscious drive to have healthy children is important when choosing a mate.””https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/24/genes-human-attraction

Never trust the Guardian when it comes to genetics its fair to say they are highly selective against anything that causes left wing narrative collapse. Of course to any none guardian reader it should be completely unsurprising that genetics select to perpetuate themselves whilst having mechanisms against inbreeding. The Guardian hates this logic because of its implications…

Hmmm. “They found that the preference for a genetically similar spouse, known as genetic assortative mating, is about a third of the strength of educational assortative mating.” I imagine the impulse behind a marriage (which leads to breeding) is not always the same as that behind ‘physical attraction’ (which leads to, well, you know).

The IVF and adoption thing is very interesting, though. I wasn’t aware of its prevalence (nor its existence, if I’m being honest). Fascinating.

I suspect a different formula explains much. Availability + Opportunity = Attraction. If it’s available and the opportunity is there, then almost anything can prove attractive when the youthful sap is rising. (Oh, happy days long gone – waking up next to an absolute dog of indeterminate name !).

Spare a thought for the pubescent teenager that was windsock, coming to terms with the idea he might be gay, having to shower with other boys and teachers post games. Sap rising? Those showers lasted seconds out of sheer fear!

I look forward to reading the report. But I wonder whether the report defines “abuse”. Does the 65% of abuse by other people under the age of 18 include the sort of adolescent behaviour of “touching up” or “copping a feel” by teenagers of similar ages? Has the report discussed the impact of Internet pornography and its availability? I just wonder if it is “real abuse” (no wish to offend anyone here) or has the term been diluted to include speech, ordinary human teenage behaviour and sharing of dirty pictures?

Only had time for a cursory glance at the NSPCC report. I’m not sure why they are including 18-24 year olds in their studies, but…

“The research found that 12 per cent of under 11s, 17.5 per cent of 11–17s and 23.7 per cent of 18–24s had been exposed to domestic violence between adults in their homes during childhood.”

The ‘childhood maltreatment’ figures tell a similar tale: 21.9% of 11-17 year olds versus 24.5% of 18-24 year olds experienced ‘childhood maltreatment at hands of parent/guardian’.

Maybe I’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick, but if not this is a MESSAGE OF HOPE! The numbers are coming down!! The war is being won!!! And the sexual abuse during childhood by a parent or guardian is but 10% of what it was (0.1% for 11-17 versus 1% for 18-24).

(1) Johnson’s sentence might seem slightly harsh to some, but the offences were committed at a time when allegations of CSA offences by celebs & VIPs (whether true or not) were all over the UK media. Was he not aware of the risk he was taking? He does not strike me as a very intelligent young man, but as you are well aware, not being very bright is not a defense, and neither is ignorance of the law.

(2) Regarding this assertion: “The belief that Adam Johnson and his celebrity cohorts, such unlikely figures as Lord Bramall and Cliff Richard, are what a ‘paedophile’ looks like, has served the NSPCC well…..”

I wonder why, when you were thinking of examples Johnson’s ‘celebrity cohorts’, you would chose two who have been fully cleared, after extensive police inquiries, of allegations made against them, rather than others who have been tried and convicted. Could it be perhaps that you are trying to fudge the issue? Or is it seriously your belief that a ‘VIP’ or celeb is less likely to be a child abuser than someone living in a bedsit? There is no ‘typical profile’ of a paedophile.

I am very aware that there is no ‘typical profile’ of a paedophile. My point, in its entirety, was that the NSPCC has been busy trying to convince us that there was such a thing as a typical paedophile. It was preferably a politician, or DJ if stuck for candidates, and had a lot of money. That is what ‘Giving Victims a Voice’ was all about. They have come unstuck lately with figures like Cliff and Lord Bramall, but they did well for a while with geriatric performers. All the time, ignoring the major danger to children, which was, apparently, other children. Whether you consider ‘other children’ sexting each other or watching each other in the bath is a serious matter – some do, some don’t – is another matter – but it certainly woulnd’t have had the spin off in terms of funding, running courses for CRB checking adults etc, etc, that persuading us that this major epidemic of child abuse was actually about evil teachers, vicars and DJs did.

“Whether you consider ‘other children’ sexting each other or watching each other in the bath is a serious matter ”

Well, those are two different things. The media culture these days – both ‘old’ and ‘new’ media – does seem, on the face of it, to sexualise youngsters at an inappropriately early age. But then, way back in the innocent pre social media ‘nineties, there was Britney Spears and her schoolgirl uniforms and so on. Personally I grew up in the eighties, the early days of MTV – Madonna, Prince, etc. I remember a minor media imbroglio over Michael Jackson, of all people, who was being admonished for doing pelvic thrusts in his videos. As my mother remarked at the time (bear in mind this was mid 80s, a good decade before the allegations that Jackson’s own personal sexual interests might be suspect) “I don’t know what the fuss is all about, in my day Elvis was at the same. ” Mind you, I don’t think even my mother twigged that ‘Jailhouse Rock’ was a song about gay sex in prison.

I guess my take overall is that I’m uncomfortable with the legal system treating children as adults. I’d be consistent on that and even extend it to notorious cases, such as Thompson/Venables, a case which in my view was disgracefully exploited by the media and a series of authoritarian home secretaries – both Tory and Labour.

I wonder if it’s not the case that rather than being the media who “sexualise youngsters at an inappropriately early age” it isn’t in large part the technology that’s allowing them to do it themselves. There are no barriers anymore, no embarrassment at having to try and sneak a peak in an encylopedia before the librarian sees you blushing – just wall to wall internet porn, anonymous chats with someone who will (hopefully) never know your real identity…

God, what would I have done with the tools now available to an excited boy? I’d certainly have tried them all at least once, and quite likely I’d have spent many long hours in my bedroom ‘doing my homework’ with a chair against the door. It’s a hell of a lot of temptation to place before the naturally curious. No easy way to turn back the clock.

“Two year 6 children (aged 11 and 10) were in a “relationship” and topless photos were shared between them. The boy shared the image of the girl via his social media account and also sent them to another year 6 child and asked her to share images with him. A social services referral was made on due to the risk of significant harm to both the boy and also the potential impact of his behaviour on other children.”

I don’t even have a ‘social media account’! And the processing costs at Boots would have prevented me from developing any ‘topless’ pics of my ‘partner’. What a world!

^ ages 10 and 11 is not 3 or 4. Referral to social services strikes me on the face of it as a bit over the top in that case – unless there were other aspects or factors that were causing concern with regard to the boy’s behaviour and/or family background.

At a similar age, perhaps a year or so older, I knew that Madonna’s ‘Into the Groove’ wasn’t just a song about dancing or playing a vinyl record. Why? Because I’d read it in Smash Hits. And frankly, partially guessed myself, from the video and lyrics (“get into the groove/boy you’ve got to prove/your love to me”, etc.

I suppose the real ‘danger’ of ‘significant harm’ (as imagined by the authorities) is that some non-kids are going to get hold of the pics being posted… I can sort of see where they’re coming from, but…

Madonna? That’s some imagination you’ve got there, TDF! I’m reminded of a friend (previously sane) trying to convince me that Pink Floyd had soundtracked ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ with one of their many boring albums!

“I suppose the real ‘danger’ of ‘significant harm’ (as imagined by the authorities) is that some non-kids are going to get hold of the pics being posted… I can sort of see where they’re coming from, but…”

Fair point.

“That’s some imagination you’ve got there”

Well, I don’t know. The wikipedia article on the song also refers to the sexual innuendo in the lyrics – go figure….

God, what would I have done with the tools now available to an excited boy?

Indeed…i dread to think what I would have…

Makes my first real, ie non -imaginary, girlfriend’s sending me explicit letters ( on neon coloured A4 paper-it was the 80’s and you try drawing obscene cartoons to illustrate more fully your text on the space provided by the SMS of our day, the Athena Card) seem naively quaint by comparison. I will never forget the ‘episode’ ‘Dreaming of Garlic Bread (as said, the 80s when garlic bread was both new and sophisticated among the squat dwellers of N7).

Mind you , I was still a teenager (17-18) and she a few years older….perhaps I should consult Slatehead & Gorgon…if only The Bestes Frau In The World hadn’t made me burn those letters…

Exotic ‘Pizza Hut’ garlic-bread! I was still a fan (of the bread, not Pizza Hut) until I read this, TBD. I’ll leave TDF to put his imagination to work solving this. Plenty of acronyms today. Time to LTFH.

As my mother remarked at the time …..“I don’t know what the fuss is all about, in my day Elvis was at the same. ”

And suddenly i know why your comments always sound so familiar, you ARE my younger brother ….and I claim my £5! Seriously Jon-jons, go play with your F-stops or back to doing whatever it is landscape photographers do at this time of year, instead of wasting your time here.

I was refering to us having had the very self same experience , re 80-Mother-Madonna-Elvis “The Pelvis” . Although as you say you read ‘Smash Hits’ you can’t really be my bro’, cos he would never have stooped so low..I still recall the stacks of NME’s (?) next to his bed.

I’m afraid my musical tastes in the 80s were pretty mainstream, chart-friendly stuff, so Smash Hits was my reading material on the rare occasions when I had sufficient pocket money to fork out for a music mag at that time.

Adam Johnson isn’t a paedophile, so any ‘typical profile’ wouldn’t include him anyway.

The greaseball’s sentence seems more than ‘slightly harsh’ to me, but then again I don’t have a massive amount of time for this ‘therapy-based bullshit’:

” It seems inevitable that M [victim] will require ongoing therapeutic interventions into the future. You yourself said to the psychiatrist Dr Hopley “I have changed M’s life.” On the evidence I have received from M and from her Counsellor I am satisfied that M has suffered severe psychological harm and have no doubt that I should take this into account. ”

“All of the professionals share the view that you [perpetrator] are needing of some form of treatment or assistance and it is a view which I hope will be conveyed to those who will have care of you during your detention.”

Examples of fellow celebrities could include Rolf Harris and Ched Evans. Their sentences might also seem slightly harsh to some but that’s because they don’t believe they are guilty.

My own guess (as opposed to the guesswork of others, backed up or not by statistics, which might or might not be worth much, or anything) is that VIPs are less likely to be offenders than someone in a bedsit. I’d be on surer ground in guessing that celebrities (including footballers) are over-represented in the statistics nowadays for reasons that should be obvious. Don’t you agree?

2,700 adolescents and children are being treated for ‘gender reassignment’

Call me Mr Thicky but try as i might, and i have tried several times today (hence earlier banality no doubt), i can’t quite see your point. What has Children wanting gender reassignment to do with Child-on-Child Abuse? That children are sexual beings *(paging ToC*) ? That victims of child-on-child abuse are more likely to want re-genderizing?

Sorry, I make connections in my mind and assume that everyone else picks up on them….

I’m not channeling ToC, honest! On the one hand we are told that everyone under the age of 16 is totally innocent, and has no thought of sex until some older person grooms them, and on the other we are told that they are so sure of their sexuality that they know they have been assigned the wrong sex….and permanent changes can be made to it.

See, I knew it was just me being dense. Thank you. Yes you’re right, it is a dichotomy. As pro-Tranny rights as I am, I really don’t think 12 year olds should be having Gender Reassignment consultations (ie getting puberty delaying tablets prescribed).

1) sexuality and gender are not the same. Being aware that you do not feel the same sex that your body tells you that you are does not necessarily mean you want to have sex with a different body. Not to be offensive, suppose someone becomes aware they have a disability at around puberty – that would be distinctive from their sex drive.

2) we are all aware that sexuality below the age of 16 exists, but that not everybody aged below 16 is either able to control that sex drive or exercise it without damage to themselves or others so we have this arbitrary age of 16 at which everybody is supposed to be take responsibility. Speaking from experience, I have known people aged 20+ I think behave sexually. in ways that are not in their best interests…

Yes, the resurgence of advocacy focus on what we used to call “stranger danger” sexual predation of minors, by unrelated adults, is intriguing.

The industry of child protection professionals and related academic researchers, dominated by feminist obsession with incestuous molestation and rape, has been battling to move the focus to predation “in the home”, (i.e., by adults or other minors with some familial relationship to the victim, not necessarily blood relatives), since the 1970’s. With varying degrees of success at various periods of time. Sometimes with such fanaticism that they would actively discourage public discussion of non-familial predation. There is a bizarre statement in the introduction to Finklehor’s study on Day Care abuse cases (1988), which reveals this reluctance: “The discovery of sexual abuse in day care presented certain dilemmas for the child-protection field. Some feared it provided a too-welcome distraction for those reluctant to face the reality of abuse within the family”.

Even in very serious cases of child-on-child sexual predation, involving forced participation in oral sex or penetration, an older child can’t really be classified as a “pedophilic” offender unless the age gap is of 10 or more years. Any “profiles” of “typical pedophiles”, (probably an irrational concept to begin with), would therefore necessarily involve persons aged 18+ and most of these historic CSA claim cases with defendants in their 60’s-80’s are about offences committed when the accused was under 40.

With the Better Life CSA and pornography conspiracy of the 1970’s, a few of the perps were in their 40’s, many were in their 30’s, but most were in their 20’s (and at least two were only 19). The pornography they generated which was commercially distributed, had a curious theme to it however. You might expect these pederasts to generate CSA images of adult males exploiting young boys – and they did create some of that nature. But most of their materials depicted adolescents engaged in oral and anal sex with pre-adolescents. Presumably, that material represented for them a re-enactment of the beginning of their own career as sex offenders or activity they fantasized engaging in as adolescents but were unable to act upon for whatever reasons. So, although a 16 year old sexually exploiting a 10 year old doesn’t fit the definition of “pedophile”, it seems legitimate to be concerned that they don’t fit the definition – YET…

It is interesting that there is a kind of unspoken assumption in UK society that teenagers are OK to experiment with sexual activity as long as they are in a pseudo-romantic monogamous relationship with a person of the opposite, same, or intermediate sex and of identical age, but not related as a sibling or cousin, but that anything else is verboten. This experimentation is approved because it is seen as training wheels for marriage. However it may not be teacher-student, or footballer-fan, or pop star-fan.